User talk:Daves1

Daves1, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Daves1! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Luna Park, Scranton

You've put an awful lot of work into just one article. So I thought I'd warn you that the rest of Wikipedia (not me, I'm just a copyeditor who avoids such debates) will likely consider it much too long, which would be a lot of wasted effort. You could compare it to the other articles listed at Luna Park (they're all much shorter) or ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks. Art LaPella (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have experience with that much rewriting, but concerning "how to communicate with others": In addition to the WikiProject linked above, you probably know about Wikipedia:Teahouse and Wikipedia:Help desk as good places to get started. Art LaPella (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that your article is the 8th longest out of 6,909,276 articles. Art LaPella (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"a team of editors" overstates how organized we are. I'm trying to describe the Wikipedia:Consensus.
That "small text file" is larger than most books.
Yes, breaking big articles down into small articles, with a summary article linking to detail articles, is supported, and encouraged. My computer slows down trying to handle your page. See Wikipedia:Summary style. Even then, that much detail for a park that closed a century ago would be unique.
One way to determine article size is to go to the top of the article and look for the blue words "View history". It gives you a list of all the edits to that article, with each line representing one edit. If you try that on this talk page, the second line will say "(cur | prev) 05:13, 30 January 2017‎ Art LaPella (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (2,289 bytes) (+208)‎ . . (→‎Luna Park, Scranton: 8th largest) (rollback: 3 edits | undo)" (I don't know what the first line will say, because it will represent the edit I'm making now.) "2,289 bytes" is the article size after that edit.
Although I don't write articles, I have more familiarity with our endless guidelines. You're looking for Wikipedia:Article length. However, that page understates the de facto length limits. West African Ebola virus epidemic, for instance, is considered a Wikipedia:Good article, but it's too big according to that article length guideline. You might also look at it as an example of linking to subarticles, "summary style".
The article length guideline is for "text length", not the total file length you get from clicking "View history". That guideline links to scripts that will calculate what they mean by text length. Art LaPella (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I'm wielding my 'virtual blue pencil'. You know, this is an interesting and real problem for a historian, where to put a volume of data able to viewed online yet not in a form able to be published. A blog doesn't seem to be the answer nor does a web site. At any rate, I'll cut this article down over the next several days. Thanks for your help. If you have other suggestions, they are much appreciated. Dave Sienkiewicz Daves1 (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dave, I think Art LaPella is being diplomatic. In no way is an encyclopedic article--which is geared to offer an overview of a subject--the place to add week-by-week details on arcana. Most, if not all of this, doesn't belong here. It may well be appropriate for a full-length published history of the subject; that's the place for such detailed content, which may appeal to a select readership. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's terse, mean spirited feedback. As indicated, I'm condensing the article. Dave SienkiewiczDaves1 (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't at all intended to be mean-spirited--as someone well acquainted with the process of the blue pencil, my input was to the point and addressed the intention of an encyclopedia. My suggestion is that the article be restored to something like where you had it in October of last year. I'm going to seek input from other experienced editors. Thank you, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't use the Wikipedia:Watchlist, there's a discussion I want to make sure you don't miss. Art LaPella (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have a copy of the deleted text, you can retrieve it by clicking "View history" as described before, and click any previous version of the article. You could then copy and paste it somewhere, add citations and address other concerns, and save that version in your sandbox (deleting my "sandbox" explanation since you just used the term), and then you can invite others to comment on User:Daves1/Sandbox. That would best be done at Talk:Luna Park, Scranton, the usual place to attract anyone interested in the article. Art LaPella (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest:

waiting two more days, so nobody can say they didn't have a chance to comment
you copy and paste User:Daves1/sandbox to Luna Park, Scranton, so your name is associated with the changes you want
I make my edit as described, as you don't seem completely in agreement but aren't really objecting either, and my name will be on the edit I wanted
I'll watch the article another week or so to see if anybody comes back. Art LaPella (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style. You'll get lost at Wikipedia:Manual of Style, especially if you try to find all the subpages. Art LaPella (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Made a small change on a suggestion from a local history buff, add a link to the Lackawanna Historical Society as they have a small file of original park documentation and photographs. While I had the editor open, I changed "whiles" to "while" in the caption for Vallecita's leopards. Thanks, Art, for reference to SMoS. Dave SienkiewiczDaves1 (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I copyedited the article as we discussed. The main undiscussed recurring issue was references. Although I don't have much confidence on reference formatting, especially when there's no easy way to look them up (my financial career doesn't give me a reason to travel to a big academic library), I haven't noticed other Wikipedia references beginning with a sub-phrase from the article title, or from the previous text. You might have been trying to imitate <ref name, which is an identifier used to allow the same reference to be used in different places; it can be any unique text string, just so the same text string is used when reusing the reference. Example: I changed

4. Marvels. (1905, June 18). The Marvels of Luna Park. Scranton Republican.

to:

4. "The Marvels of Luna Park". Scranton Republican. June 18, 1905.

which I encoded on the edit page like this:

<ref>{{cite news|date=June 18, 1905|title= The Marvels of Luna Park|newspaper=Scranton Republican}}</ref>

The brackets {{ mean that "cite news" is a Wikipedia:template, which is software that takes input like "newspaper=Scranton Republican" and formats it in a standard way (including italics, in this case). Its parameters are described at Template:Cite news. The point is often made that you don't have to use templates on Wikipedia to reference things, but it is a way to make the formatting standard.

I assumed that "The Marvels of Luna Park" is the title of a June 18, 1905 article in the Scranton Republican newspaper. If that guess is wrong, then I need to fix the article about 30 times. Art LaPella (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:LP Scranton TR DH SC PS.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:LP Scranton TR DH SC PS.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 19:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baby

"06/05 An abandoned baby is found in the park and is later raffled off on June 12th." Does the newspaper really say that? Nobody called the police or rioted? Or was it an animal baby? Art LaPella (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to believe in this day and age but this was the era of anthracite mining in Northeastern Pennsylvania and coal mining companies brought over immigrants sometimes in entire communities. Conditions in the mines were atrocious and life wasn't held with much value. In fact, my grandfather died in an accident and was literally dumped on his front porch in a canvas bag. That's how my late father found him. There was a lot of prejudice among ethnic and racial groups in the area.

From what I could determine, there was an orphanage for older children that could work and many were employed to sort slate out of coal in building-sized machines called "breakers". In the case of LP, park management determined it was easier to adopt the child out to a deserving couple and possibly spare the child of a hard life. The actual article announcing the raffle is in the 06/08/1908 edition of the Scranton Republican. There's a similar article from a day earlier.

Here's a paragraph...

06/07/1908 from the Scranton Republican: Another brand new novelty will be the awarding of the 6-month old baby on Friday evening at 7:30. The waif was left at the check room on Friday afternoon by a mysterious woman in black that cannot be found, and unless she puts in an appearance before next Friday, it will be given by a committee of three citizens to the person who can prove that they are the best capable of providing a comfortable home. Any body interested can see the little stranger next Friday.

So Park Manager Sloss personally begins collecting names of couples interested in adopting the baby while an employee, a Mrs. Creman, takes care of the baby. On the 12th, they gathered the interested couples together. There seemed to be some sort of appeal for fairness, and the child was raffled off among the couples. The role of the "so-called" committee is not detailed.

If you think this is too controversial, I can substitute with another event such as their test of the park's fire department and hydrants. Daves1 (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's the most interesting item on the list. I don't see how it can be too controversial because we aren't saying we approve. If the length police remove the rest of the list, I would argue for keeping that item. (And my grandfather also died in a Pennsylvania coal mine.) Art LaPella (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:LP Scranton HalesTours.jpg needs authorship information

Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:LP Scranton HalesTours.jpg appears to be missing information as to one (or more) of the following :

The author or creators of the work, (including information as to the author's lifespan).
Where and how this particular version was obtained.
When the work was created,

If you did provide such information, it is currently confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).

If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: {{subst:usernameexpand|Daves1}} will produce an appropriate expansion,
or use the {{own}} template.

Please also add authorship and sourcing to other files you created or uplopaded. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions please see Help:File page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Daves1. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]